United States v. Chief Warrant Officer Two BRENTON R. HUDGENS

UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before FLOR, POND, and STEELE Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Chief Warrant Officer Two BRENTON R. HUDGENS United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20240257 Headquarters, Fort Campbell John R. Maloney, William Ramsey, and Frederic P. Gallun, Military Judges Colonel Jason A. Coats, Staff Judge Advocate For Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Autumn R. Porter, JA; Major Robert W.

Rodriguez, JA; Captain Jessica A. Adler, JA (on brief); Colonel Frank E. Kostik, Jr., JA; Lieutenant Colonel Kyle C. Sprague, JA; Major Kelsey Mowatt-Larssen, JA; Captain Jessica A. Adler, JA (on reply brief).

For Appellee: Colonel Richard E. Gorini, JA; Major Isaac J. Dickson, JA; Captain Meghan E. Moore, JA (on brief).

21 April 2026

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON RECONSIDERATION

STEELE, Judge: This court previously affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence in appellant's case. United States v. Hudgens, ARMY 20240257 (Army Ct. Crim, App. March 2026). On 3 April 2026, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and suggestion for en bane reconsideration on the issue of whether appellant's record of trial was substantially incomplete. The court did not adopt appellant's suggestion for en bane reconsideration. We, however, grant appellant's request for reconsideration and once again, affirm the findings and sentence.

An officer panel, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of domestic violence, in violation of HUDGENS-ARMY 20240257 and admitted at trial. The transcripts that accompanied PEs 3 and 4 were marked as AEs and included with the record of trial. A few months later, during another argument with appellant, the victim purportedly recorded appellant admitting to the threatening comments he made previously during the "dog incident." This audio recording was admitted as PE 6. Prosecution Exhibits 3, 4, and 6 corroborated both the victim's and appellant's testimony at trial. Prosecution Exhibit 12 contained a partial clip of a recorded conversation between the victim and appellant offered as evidence of Specification 4 of Charge II, of which appellant was found not guilty.

Although defense counsel objected to the admission of PEs 4 and 6 at trial, they did not object to the usage of the transcripts as an aid when each of the recordings were published, nor did they indicate they contained a material omission or misrepresentation. The military judge also stated he would provide a limiting instruction that the transcript was not evidence: "those guides, those transcripts will not go back and are not evidence. It's simply an aid to help the members in hearing it for the first time." However, the military judge did not mark or include the transcripts for PEs 6 and 12 in the record of trial.

Appellant alleges this case presents a matter of first impression, specifically, whether Article 54(c)(2), UCMJ, requiring the preparation of a complete record of trial, applies to this court's review under Article 66(b)(1), UCMJ. Appellant argues this court must resolve: (1) whether reviews pursuant to Article 66(b)(l), UCMJ require this court to have a complete record pursuant to Article 54(c)(2), UCMJ; (2) whether this case had omissions from the record of trial making it incomplete; (3) whether those omissions were substantial; and (4) if the omissions were substantial, did the government meet its burden to show appellant was not prejudiced? For the reasons discussed below, we ultimately conclude that the record is substantially complete.

LAW AND DISCUSSION Article 54, UCMJ requires, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, the preparation of a complete record of proceedings and testimony in any case of a sentence of death, dismissal, discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. UCMJ art. 54(c)(2). For all other cases, the record shall contain such matters as the President may prescribe by regulation. UCMJ art. 54(c)(l). The President promulgated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.). 1112, which states that a record of trial is complete if it complies with the requirements of subparagraph (b) of that rule. R.C.M. 1112(d)(2). Subparagraph (b) provides that the contents of the record of trial "includes any evidence or exhibits considered by the court-martial in determining the findings or sentence" and "shall include. . . [e]xhibits, or, if permitted by the military judge, copies, photographs, or descriptions of any exhibits that were received in evidence and any appellate exhibits." R.C.M. 1l12(b)(5). Attachments for appellate review include "[e]xhibits